Yes, you all know what I'm gonna say here. And you're all gonna accuse me of being cruel. But for once, just think about things. While potentially useful human beings are starving to death in the streets, you're wasting the money that could feed twenty or thirty of them on a single cripple, a single case of cancer, whatever. The money frittered away on the First Worlds need to appear to be humane could clothe, feed and revitalise the economy of the entire Third World, let alone the ghettos and slums in their own countries.

I mean, is it really logical to spend excess of $1000 AU per day to keep somebody with acute pancreatis alive for another six months of unimaginable agony? Hell, most people with acute pancreatis are alcoholic bums, if they had anything close to that kind of support before they got sick they would have had a chance at being a decent productive member of society. Hell, why have bums at all, why allow people to live on the streets, suffering, starving, mugging and raping, when you could simply round them all up into forced labour camps. They're not doing anybody any good alive, it's time to change that.

As for the argument that cripples, retards and psychos can be productive members of society and work menial jobs, no they can't. The costs of keeping them alive and safe and medicated far outweighs any potential good they could do for society. Until healthy people stop starving to death, the defects should be eliminated from society.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not actually advocating the 30 cent bullet solution. Hell no, perish the thought. Not while fist-sized rocks are free and reusable. Or perhaps small sized rooms equipped with sluice gates to fill them with water, or poison gas vents would be more efficient when you factor in the labour costs of the people doing the potential rock-skull-smashing, I don't know. I'll leave that up to the mathematicians.

And I'm not saying this just to get a reaction, I seriously fail to see how anybody could argue against these points in a manner more intelligent than "omg u can't do that coz its meeean!" (which is already debunked by their willingness to let 20 people starve in exchange for the medical attention given to a single dying person).

Cripples need to die. For the benefit of a society that cannot support them without allowing thousands of others to starve. Retards, psychotics, the chronically sick, the terminally ill ; they all have to go. Seriously.

the_GoDdEsS

08-16-2005, 07:33 AM

No matter how cruel that might sound, it is true when you look at it practically. They are not likely to be productive. Feeding cripples, letting the mentally retarded procreate and saving people from their death bed will only degenerate society further. Not only genetically. Of course, it is considered the 'humane' thing to do but when you look at it from the points you've made it's really not.

Sin Studly

08-16-2005, 07:41 AM

Saving people? More like prolonging their agony. It's not like these terminal cases are just gonna recover.

the_GoDdEsS

08-16-2005, 07:48 AM

Yeah, that's exactly the point.

~*hit_that*~

08-16-2005, 08:36 AM

I'm not going to accuse you of being mean being as that is both a waste of energy and an abuse of stating the obvious. I am instead going to point out the blatant influence of fascism within your post and remind you what eliminating other people led to in World War Two. For example, I point out your reference to labour camps "...when you could simply round them all up into forced labour camps.".

This is a sensitive issue and you appear to be making light of it, which does not impress me in the slightest. If you had been more delicate and hadn't made the decision to phrase your opinion this way to others, I might have considered your viewpoint, as different as it is from my own.

There are more people with some form of condition in the world than there were Jews - but it would amount to the same thing. It would be creating another Holocaust since most people have some kind of illness as they grow older. It is guessed that there are more people in the world with some form of condition than there are people without a condition. I highly doubt that people related to those who have such a condition would appreciate your attitude or disrespect towards them.

I myself have relatives suffering from medical conditions, through no fault of theirs. Previously they were perfectly healthy and lived as what might be stereotyped 'functional members of society'. You may consider me to be biased, but I think that actually being close to someone with this problem after knowing them in full health alters your perspective.

Killing others is not the solution to help the Third World; it is not a price that can be considered. Though I sympathise as much as anyone else and think that something has to be done, the lives of others in exchange for those in the Third World would leave it with a blood stained legacy that no one would wish to bear. It is not for us to judge whether people, human beings, should die.There are reasons why murder is such a highly condemned crime, and this would be the equivalent of murder, if not worse.

I would also like to point out that many of these 'cripples' as you so term them, have fought for their country in the past to keep it safe. They deserve recognition and respect, not ridicule and slander.

Quite frankly, I'm disgusted because so many people gave up their lives or their health, and ended up in the states that you have so aptly described due to their own courage in defending their country and the lives of its people. And yet you manage to conveniently ignore this point of view in favour of your own.

I will concede that everyone is entitled to their opinion - you have spoken your piece, and this is mine.

Sin Studly

08-16-2005, 08:49 AM

That's cause you can't argue for shit, you can only spout things you've read in textbooks but can't put any persuasive weight into the argument.

Trust me, if I attended anything as lame as your "greek summer camp" or whatever it was, we'd have all ended the night with cripplestained clubs.

This was for Jenny, as for the other moron...

~*hit_that*~

08-16-2005, 08:54 AM

the other morin being?

Sin Studly

08-16-2005, 09:10 AM

You're lucky I'm even bothering to reply to you in a serious manner at all, since you've made practically no valid arguments in your long and tedious rant.

I'm not going to accuse you of being mean being as that is both a waste of energy and an abuse of stating the obvious.

Contradicting yourself this succinctly, especially in the very first sentence of your argument reflects very poorly on you, dude.

I am instead going to point out the blatant influence of fascism within your post and remind you what eliminating other people led to in World War Two. For example, I point out your reference to labour camps "...when you could simply round them all up into forced labour camps.".

Comparing the views of somebody to the views of Adolph Hitler is the single most pathetic argument ever made. I'm talking about bums, not Jews. Useless, worthless stinking bums who do nothing but drink and mug people on the streets. Why would you want to allow these people to exist? Likening it to the Holocaust, while full of visceral imagery, is seriously pathetic.

This is a sensitive issue and you appear to be making light of it, which does not impress me in the slightest. If you had been more delicate and hadn't made the decision to phrase your opinion this way to others, I might have considered your viewpoint, as different as it is from my own.

"I'm not listening to you because you're mean, and I'm a whining little PC vag who can't listen to common sense when it's not presented in politically correct vagina terms" Seriously, you expect me to consider your viewpoint when you've just admitted you haven't even thought about the shit you're replying to? You're an idiot.

There are more people with some form of condition in the world than there were Jews - but it would amount to the same thing. It would be creating another Holocaust since most people have some kind of illness as they grow older. It is guessed that there are more people in the world with some form of condition than there are people without a condition. I highly doubt that people related to those who have such a condition would appreciate your attitude or disrespect towards them.

Again with the Holocaust comparison. We're not talking about ethnic cleansing here, we're talking about removing people who are completely and utterly worthless to society, and who drain up the resources it would take to house, clothe and feed twenty or thirty, if not more productive workers. You're basically saying that one cripple is worth the lives of twenty others. And as for the relatives of these people, I agree with you. If I had a loved one in that condition I'd want them to live too. That's why the choice should be taken from the individual, to benefit the rest of society. The greater good for the greatest number outweighs any personal "warm fuzzy" you might get from putting your cripples in homes and acting like you're taking care of them.

I myself have relatives suffering from medical conditions, through no fault of theirs. Previously they were perfectly healthy and lived as what might be stereotyped 'functional members of society'. You may consider me to be biased, but I think that actually being close to someone with this problem after knowing them in full health alters your perspective.

Ah, and now the selfish motivation for your stance presents itself. Sure, they might have been productive members of society, but they're not anymore, and society simply can't afford to keep them alive, unless you're actually proposing that they're worth twenty other lives,

Killing others is not the solution to help the Third World; it is not a price that can be considered. Though I sympathise as much as anyone else and think that something has to be done, the lives of others in exchange for those in the Third World would leave it with a blood stained legacy that no one would wish to bear. It is not for us to judge whether people, human beings, should die.There are reasons why murder is such a highly condemned crime, and this would be the equivalent of murder, if not worse.

Allowing people to starve to death is somehow not "killing them", but not giving hundreds of thousands of dollars of palative care to a dying man is killing him? You need to look at this logically, not emotionally. As for "the people saved from starvation in the third world would be grief-stricken over the cripples and retards put to death for their sake", are you fucking kidding? Go without food for a couple of weeks, and see how much you value the life of others, you'd slit your own mothers throat for food if you were starving. And if you think the third world would be so cut up about the cripples who died to feed them, why aren't crippled racked with guilt over the twenty people starving to death to keep them alive? And if this is the equivalent of murder, then what you're proposing is the equivalent of mass murder. Seriously, one life for twenty. You can't argue that point.

I would also like to point out that many of these 'cripples' as you so term them, have fought for their country in the past to keep it safe. They deserve recognition and respect, not ridicule and slander.

Again with the emotional arguments, completely ignoring logic and reason.

Quite frankly, I'm disgusted because so many people gave up their lives or their health, and ended up in the states that you have so aptly described due to their own courage in defending their country and the lives of its people. And yet you manage to conveniently ignore this point of view in favour of your own.

And now you're saying all cripples are veterens. Look, the cold hard bottom line is ; cripples contribute nothing, or almost nothing to society. And they suck up twenty times the resources that a contributing member of society does. Perhaps if we cut loose the debris holding us down, we could build society up to a point where we could support cripples, but right now, with people starving - in the First World as well as the Third, it's completely irrational to even consider allowing cripples to live.

I will concede that everyone is entitled to their opinion - you have spoken your piece, and this is mine.

Your opinions added up to nothing more than "but thats meeeeean". You put down not one single argument that was based on logic and reason instead of emotions and visceral imagery (equating cripples with veterens and my proposal with Nazism). This is a shining example of why people shouldn't be allowed to have opinions ; their opinions might be as retarded as yours, and they might spout them like you do.

~*hit_that*~

08-16-2005, 09:19 AM

You're lucky I'm even bothering to reply to you in a serious manner at all, since you've made practically no valid arguments in your long and tedious rant.

Contradicting yourself this succinctly, especially in the very first sentence of your argument reflects very poorly on you, dude.

Comparing the views of somebody to the views of Adolph Hitler is the single most pathetic argument ever made. I'm talking about bums, not Jews. Useless, worthless stinking bums who do nothing but drink and mug people on the streets. Why would you want to allow these people to exist? Likening it to the Holocaust, while full of visceral imagery, is seriously pathetic.

"I'm not listening to you because you're mean, and I'm a whining little PC vag who can't listen to common sense when it's not presented in politically correct vagina terms" Seriously, you expect me to consider your viewpoint when you've just admitted you haven't even thought about the shit you're replying to? You're an idiot.

Again with the Holocaust comparison. We're not talking about ethnic cleansing here, we're talking about removing people who are completely and utterly worthless to society, and who drain up the resources it would take to house, clothe and feed twenty or thirty, if not more productive workers. You're basically saying that one cripple is worth the lives of twenty others. And as for the relatives of these people, I agree with you. If I had a loved one in that condition I'd want them to live too. That's why the choice should be taken from the individual, to benefit the rest of society. The greater good for the greatest number outweighs any personal "warm fuzzy" you might get from putting your cripples in homes and acting like you're taking care of them.

Ah, and now the selfish motivation for your stance presents itself. Sure, they might have been productive members of society, but they're not anymore, and society simply can't afford to keep them alive, unless you're actually proposing that they're worth twenty other lives,

Allowing people to starve to death is somehow not "killing them", but not giving hundreds of thousands of dollars of palative care to a dying man is killing him? You need to look at this logically, not emotionally. As for "the people saved from starvation in the third world would be grief-stricken over the cripples and retards put to death for their sake", are you fucking kidding? Go without food for a couple of weeks, and see how much you value the life of others, you'd slit your own mothers throat for food if you were starving. And if you think the third world would be so cut up about the cripples who died to feed them, why aren't crippled racked with guilt over the twenty people starving to death to keep them alive? And if this is the equivalent of murder, then what you're proposing is the equivalent of mass murder. Seriously, one life for twenty. You can't argue that point.

Again with the emotional arguments, completely ignoring logic and reason.

And now you're saying all cripples are veterens. Look, the cold hard bottom line is ; cripples contribute nothing, or almost nothing to society. And they suck up twenty times the resources that a contributing member of society does. Perhaps if we cut loose the debris holding us down, we could build society up to a point where we could support cripples, but right now, with people starving - in the First World as well as the Third, it's completely irrational to even consider allowing cripples to live.

Your opinions added up to nothing more than "but thats meeeeean". You put down not one single argument that was based on logic and reason instead of emotions and visceral imagery (equating cripples with veterens and my proposal with Nazism). This is a shining example of why people shouldn't be allowed to have opinions ; their opinions might be as retarded as yours, and they might spout them like you do.

well you wanna shut the fuck up and start to accept that other people CAN and WILL have views on things, and in reply to what you've said, I was simply backing up my arguments with reality. REAL THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED. and again, shut the fuck up, I am NOT moron, I don't take this kind of shit from my own brother so why the fuck should I take this shit from some stupid little bastard who don't even know me!?

Just grow up and start accepting that other people can have views, even if they differ from yours. Also, as for your comment on emotions, it just goes to show that some people fucking well have a heart, unlike you.

wanker.

Sin Studly

08-16-2005, 09:29 AM

Once again, you're arguing purely with emotions. You weren't backing up your arguments with reality, you were simply equating my views with Nazism, the lowest and most commonly used tactic in arguments when you have no real footing, you fall back on the whole "Holocaust" thing because nobody wants to be seen to be agreeing with Hitler.

You haven't even touched on the issue at hand. And yes, I do respect other peoples right to have opinions that differ from my own, when they can back them up. You can't back anything you've stated except with emotionally loaded hyperbole, I'm arguing with logic and rationality, whilst you're arguing "omg u can't kill cripples cause they're veterns and killing ppl makes u a nazi!" and completely ignoring the fact that keeping one cripple alive kills twenty other people, even more in the long run when you factor in the relative lack of production you're getting out of the cripple.

Just answer me this one question. Just this one.

Is the life of a cripple worth the lives of twenty other people? Yes, or no?

And, it just goes to show some people don't have brains. I do have a heart, my heart just doesn't bleed twenty times more for a cripple as it does for any other human being.

~*hit_that*~

08-16-2005, 09:51 AM

Once again, you're arguing purely with emotions. You weren't backing up your arguments with reality, you were simply equating my views with Nazism, the lowest and most commonly used tactic in arguments when you have no real footing, you fall back on the whole "Holocaust" thing because nobody wants to be seen to be agreeing with Hitler.

You haven't even touched on the issue at hand. And yes, I do respect other peoples right to have opinions that differ from my own, when they can back them up. You can't back anything you've stated except with emotionally loaded hyperbole, I'm arguing with logic and rationality, whilst you're arguing "omg u can't kill cripples cause they're veterns and killing ppl makes u a nazi!" and completely ignoring the fact that keeping one cripple alive kills twenty other people, even more in the long run when you factor in the relative lack of production you're getting out of the cripple.

Just answer me this one question. Just this one.

Is the life of a cripple worth the lives of twenty other people? Yes, or no?

And, it just goes to show some people don't have brains. I do have a heart, my heart just doesn't bleed twenty times more for a cripple as it does for any other human being.

I am no longer going to bother replying to you, there is just no point. Whatever. I don't like you. Therefore I am just not gonna talk to you, it makes my life easier. Once again I'm gonna ask this question "does anyone wanna talk offpsring around here?" cos as of late, the only thing i've seen on here is people bitching at each other, and general shit being spoken.

Conspiracy of One

08-16-2005, 09:55 AM

I basically agree with justin on this. Why the fuck are we wasting our money rehabilitating these people?Let them live to suffer more and make us poor.....Yea Great idea. :rolleyes:

Sin Studly

08-16-2005, 09:55 AM

This is the politics forum. It stands to reason that we might have political arguments here. If you want meaningless bullshit, take it to the general offspring chat, it's where morons like you belong anyway. Seriously, since you obviously know you have no leg to stand on in this argument, you could at least back out graciously instead of this pathetic charade.

And you haven't answered my question, do you think the life of one cripple is worth the lives of twenty other people? If you don't answer it I'll take it as your admission that you realise you're completely and utterly wrong, and I'm completely and utterly right.

Seriously, why can't you people admit defeat in a gracious and rational matter instead of the whole "omg i dun like u" bullshit you guys pull? Are you that incapable of a rational discussion?

Socially Rejected

08-16-2005, 10:04 AM

What Justin said does make sense - fucking retard's.

wheelchairman

08-16-2005, 10:09 AM

I'm saddened by what I see here. I am a cripple, and I live my life around other cripples, and I can say that you are doing them no favor. Why do you think there is such a high support among handicapped like myself, for Euthanasia laws and doctor assisted suicide? Because that would be the humanitarian treatment.

When it gets down to it, keeping us alive is the most selfish act that the bleeding heart circle jerkers do. They need to gratify themselves to keep us alive. Masturbate to their own percieved good deeds, while they live completely oblivious to the extreme pain that life can be.

What you people need to learn is that right and wrong is completely relative. And quit your preaching.

Jesus

08-16-2005, 10:12 AM

No matter how cruel that might sound, it is true when you look at it practically. They are not likely to be productive. Feeding cripples, letting the mentally retarded procreate and saving people from their death bed will only degenerate society further. Not only genetically. Of course, it is considered the 'humane' thing to do but when you look at it from the points you've made it's really not.

Money isn't wasted when it's being spend. Thus spending it on for instance a cripple who will further spend it on food and health and hardly saves any money is quite good for the economy. This doesn't have much to do with being productive, nor is it relevant. Some countries use cripples and dying patients to stimulate the economy, other countries after nazi Germany succesfully demonstrated military keynesianism use bombs, which is also a waste production. Thus economically speaking both a cripple (or a sick patient) and a bomb play the same market guidance role (just in different orientated economies and societies).

Personally I ofcourse dismiss the idea of ones "worth to society" can be evaluated by ones maximization of production or consumption. And also on a moral level I disagree, but those weren't the arguments being made so no need to go into that.

Sinister

08-16-2005, 10:13 AM

Why do you think there is such a high support among handicapped like myself, for Euthanasia laws and doctor assisted suicide? Because that would be the humanitarian treatment.

that's not actually needed. if you want to die, just slit your throat, shoot yourself in the head, or "drive" your wheelchair over the edge of a cliff.

but if you enjoy life, disregard my suggestions.

wheelchairman

08-16-2005, 10:20 AM

that's not actually needed. if you want to die, just slit your throat, shoot yourself in the head, or "drive" your wheelchair over the edge of a cliff.

but if you enjoy life, disregard my suggestions.
Yes cause we don't live in institutions with 24 hour staff. Half the patients are suicidal, the other half can't think. Do you think they leave razors around here? Do you know what it's like to have someone shave for you? or hell, wipe your ass?

Sinister

08-16-2005, 10:22 AM

Do you know what it's like to have someone shave for you? or hell, wipe your ass?

no, and I honestly don't want to know. I'd much rather die than be dependent on others for that sorta stuff.

wheelchairman

08-16-2005, 10:23 AM

Yeah, and now you know how I feel.

Sin Studly

08-16-2005, 10:25 AM

Money isn't wasted when it's being spend. Thus spending it on a cripple who will further spend it on food and health and hardly saves any money is quite good for the economy. This doesn't have much to do with being productive, nor is it relevant. Some countries use cripples and dying patients to do it, other countries after nazi Germany succesfully demonstrated military keynesianism use bombs, which is also a waste production. Thus economically speaking both a cripple and a bomb play the same market guidance role (just in different orientated economies and societies).

I know cripples create jobs for carers, nurses, wheelchair manufacturers, etc, but they're simply not cost-effective, especially when almost all areas of the public sector are so poorly underfunded and understaffed. We don't have enough nurses and carers in Australia to keep up with the strain, so eliminating the cripples isn't going to hurt at all, and it will bring in some massive gains that are sorely needed for social welfare, police, education, etc. etc. etc. Investing the money we're wasting (yes, wasting) on cripples into industry would be far more beneficial for all concerned.

And as for the moral qualms, once again ; one against twenty.

Sinister

08-16-2005, 10:26 AM

Yeah, and now you know how I feel.

kind of. it must be awful to desperately want to die, and even more awful if you can't possibly kill yourself.

Sin Studly

08-16-2005, 10:33 AM

See, even cripples agree with me.

Jesus

08-16-2005, 10:46 AM

I know cripples create jobs for carers, nurses, wheelchair manufacturers, etc, but they're simply not cost-effective, especially when almost all areas of the public sector are so poorly underfunded and understaffed. We don't have enough nurses and carers in Australia to keep up with the strain, so eliminating the cripples isn't going to hurt at all, and it will bring in some massive gains that are sorely needed for social welfare, police, education, etc. etc. etc. Investing the money we're wasting (yes, wasting) on cripples into industry would be far more beneficial for all concerned.
Once again, money isn't wasted when it's spend. These people don't have any savings. They contribute in directing the market towards a more service based economy and the development of technological industries. Just like the Pentagon for instance in the US (technologically).
And if you say you are in a desperate need of medical staff in Australia, then they are succesfully doing their job in society. Job creation -> economic growth -> more funds available for other less effective things like you mentioned.

And as for the moral qualms, once again ; one against twenty.
Not an if if option for me. They could all be helped within the same economy. Especially since these people spend everything they have. They are quite effective.

Flexing Wings

08-16-2005, 11:21 AM

And as for the moral qualms, once again ; one against twenty.

As much as you cannot really argue with that statement, on the logical and rational front that you have been reiterating throughout, what about the concept that no human being should have the right/power to decide if another person should live or die?

Who would have this power?

SicN Twisted

08-16-2005, 11:25 AM

Why should people be productive to society? Productively only makes people borring and their lives trivial. Society's not so wonderful that productivity should be valued. Society is borring, dogmatic and pathetic, if anything people who aren't productive are lucky to escape the fray.

~*hit_that*~

08-16-2005, 11:34 AM

This is the politics forum. It stands to reason that we might have political arguments here. If you want meaningless bullshit, take it to the general offspring chat, it's where morons like you belong anyway. Seriously, since you obviously know you have no leg to stand on in this argument, you could at least back out graciously instead of this pathetic charade.

And you haven't answered my question, do you think the life of one cripple is worth the lives of twenty other people? If you don't answer it I'll take it as your admission that you realise you're completely and utterly wrong, and I'm completely and utterly right.

Seriously, why can't you people admit defeat in a gracious and rational matter instead of the whole "omg i dun like u" bullshit you guys pull? Are you that incapable of a rational discussion?

"I don't like you" is the truth. I don't. I just don't see the point in wasting my time. And yes, in answer to your question, one person (whether crippled or not) is worth the lives of 20 others. This may seem selfish to you, whatever I don't care, this is my opinion, I am allowed it and I will say it.

Live and let live :)

MichealCorleone

08-16-2005, 11:43 AM

Why should people be productive to society? Productively only makes people borring and their lives trivial. Society's not so wonderful that productivity should be valued. Society is borring, dogmatic and pathetic, if anything people who aren't productive are lucky to escape the fray.

* boring, boring

Conspiracy of One

08-16-2005, 11:45 AM

* boring, boring
justin....after we all know who micheal is?

0r4ng3

08-16-2005, 11:48 AM

justin....after we all know who micheal is?I still don't believe him.

HornyPope

08-16-2005, 11:55 AM

Didnt read most of it, but lack of money around the globe was never a catalyst to poverty anyways. If we take it from the aformentioned social services/help, it doesn't mean it'll go to the "more" needy. It'll just end up in someone else's pockets.

Preocupado

08-16-2005, 12:00 PM

I see all the arguments in this thread are valid if they are considered as a way of solving the problems living under the capitalism.

Hit_That, you had some interesting ideas coming in your first post, but you just didn't finish them with what really matters when discussing a pragmatic issue: solutions. That's a frustrating read.

Plus, i just want to add that the problem doesn't lie in the crippleds, mentally ill or everyone who produces less money to the system. They have different needs from ours, and the system must allow them to find cheaper ways of supplying themselves for those needs. And if all that the system needs to survive is resources and productivity, then tell me a reason why we shouldn't replace humans for robots.

Let's just kill all the crippleds and mentally ill who are obviously not generating enough money to keep themselves. Then, when we are free from that capitalistic disgrace, let's get rid of everyone who has minor mental problems, because they're next on the list of less productive: they are the fuckers who can't keep up with 100% of the required days of work in the companies because they have some problems with theyr families. And so on. Now this is one fucking blood splattering vicious system.

The crippled, mentally ill, etc. also pay taxes everytime they buy a fucking pack of toylet paper, so they are giving theyr "contribution" to theyr country.

The problem lies on the re-distribuition of this money. We can't simply give them more money if they produce less money than we do. That just makes them look like a social disease.

I'll continue this later and check if i didn't make myself redundant, since i just had my first black tar. (Damn SinStudly, you were right about this one.)

HornyPope

08-16-2005, 12:08 PM

Dude, on the other side of the token I could just as easily argue that if killed the ten richest people in the world and inherited their wealth, we could feed half a billion of starving children for an entire generation.

Flexing Wings

08-16-2005, 12:13 PM

Plus, i just want to add that the problem doesn't lie in the crippleds, mentally ill or everyone who produces less money to the system. They have different needs from ours, and the system must allow them to find cheaper ways of supplying themselves for those needs. And if all that the system needs to survive is resources and productivity, then tell me a reason why we shouldn't replace humans for robots.

That just reminded me of a mate of mine who works for a company that aims to help people with learning difficulties and physical disabilities to become self-sufficient. I don't really know how well it will go as yet, becuase the concept is only just starting to get its foundations laid.

I guess the only problem then is thinking that to do this on a larger scale you wouldn't be able to get an independent financial backer, you'd need to get government support... which could end up equating to spending more than we already do... ?

I think I still just take issue with the principle of who has the right to make such decisions with peoples lives...

Preocupado

08-16-2005, 12:32 PM

That just reminded me of a mate of mine who works for a company that aims to help people with learning difficulties and physical disabilities to become self-sufficient. I don't really know how well it will go as yet, becuase the concept is only just starting to get its foundations laid.

I guess the only problem then is thinking that to do this on a larger scale you wouldn't be able to get an independent financial backer, you'd need to get government support... which could end up equating to spending more than we already do... ?

I think I still just take issue with the principle of who has the right to make such decisions with peoples lives...

You see, that kind of project of your mate's company is part of the essency of introducing people who were once only known as a social disease right into the middle of the productivity system. That company will sure grow the country's knowledge with it's experience.

And the other part that needs to be worked on, like you said, is the government support. This support can't be a donation. It has to work togueter with projects like the one you mentioned.

Sin Studly

08-16-2005, 11:59 PM

Once again, money isn't wasted when it's spend. These people don't have any savings. They contribute in directing the market towards a more service based economy and the development of technological industries. Just like the Pentagon for instance in the US (technologically).
And if you say you are in a desperate need of medical staff in Australia, then they are succesfully doing their job in society. Job creation -> economic growth -> more funds available for other less effective things like you mentioned.

We're in desperate need of medical staff because the government keeps these people alive, especially when it comes to palative care. It's the governments money being spent on the cripples, why can't they simple cut out the middlemen and put the money straight into capital for the export or agricultural industry. The idea of "creating jobs" becomes null and void when you take into account the forced labour idea, because hell, all the jobs in the world aren't going to solve the homelessness problem because those people are for the most part, unemployable, drug-dependent or psychotic and will never, ever get jobs. Best solution is to kill them, or put them into forced labour programs. Civilised solution is to offer them a choice. Because just pretending like they don't exist is not civilised.

what about the concept that no human being should have the right/power to decide if another person should live or die?

Who would have this power?

Ideally, a board of clinically ruthless mathematicians and statisticians, or perhaps even a computer program.

Why should people be productive to society? Productively only makes people borring and their lives trivial. Society's not so wonderful that productivity should be valued. Society is borring, dogmatic and pathetic, if anything people who aren't productive are lucky to escape the fray.

This is why anarchism would never work, you're all fucking morons who argue on impossible ideology. Who would grow the food under anarchism? Who would build the tools? More importantly, who would make the weapons and serve as a defence force for when an infinitely more powerful fascist government inevitably invades your shitty little commune and purges the living fuck out of you? Go throw a stack of newspapers into the road at 3am, it's hardkore anarky, FUCK DA GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!11111111111111111one

"I don't like you" is the truth. I don't. I just don't see the point in wasting my time. And yes, in answer to your question, one person (whether crippled or not) is worth the lives of 20 others. This may seem selfish to you, whatever I don't care, this is my opinion, I am allowed it and I will say it.

Live and let live

One person is worth the lives of twenty others? How does that make sense? Is the fifth person in that twenty others worth the lives of twenty more people, including the first person who's worth twenty lives? This isn't "live and let live", when people are starving this is "live and let twenty other motherfuckers die". It's a triage situation, not a happyhappy circlejerk where everybody can live happily ever after. Ever notice that when people have to constantly insist they're entitled to an opinion, their opinions are invariably fucking stupid and nonsensical, almost as if they have to cling to the First Amendment to justify their right to be a complete and utter fucking moron? If your opinions weren't worth less than dog vomit, you wouldn't have to keep insisting that you're entitled to them. You have to be the dumbest fucking idiot alive, stay out of the politics forum and go chat about t3h offsprings instead.

Plus, i just want to add that the problem doesn't lie in the crippleds, mentally ill or everyone who produces less money to the system. They have different needs from ours, and the system must allow them to find cheaper ways of supplying themselves for those needs

You're not going to find a cheaper way than mass extermination. As for the robots thing, no, I don't think people should be replaced by robots, but if we cut out the social leeches people would have less work to do to maintain society, and more time to dedicate to art and culture and all that shit.

Dude, on the other side of the token I could just as easily argue that if killed the ten richest people in the world and inherited their wealth, we could feed half a billion of starving children for an entire generation.

I wouldn't have any objections to that, either.

And as for the "program to make crips into productive members of society", that program would be spending far more money than it's worth, and the cripples would still need more care, and be less productive. Culling off the deadwood is still the right way to go.

RXP

08-17-2005, 01:15 AM

Money isn't wasted when it's being spend. Thus spending it on for instance a cripple who will further spend it on food and health and hardly saves any money is quite good for the economy.

Lol someone who actually understands things.

Sin Studly

08-17-2005, 03:20 AM

Explain how that benefits anyone when all the money they get comes directly from the government?

HornyPope

08-17-2005, 07:35 AM

To come back to my two paragraphs, the obvious flaw with systimatic killing off anyone who isn't productive--besides the obvious corruption surrounding this system, like all systems do, and the inability to reach a set parameter of what makes one unproductive--is that there are no guarantees that the gained wealth will go serve the needy.

Ill remind you of the October/november revolution but I dont wanna go there.

Sin Studly

08-18-2005, 04:26 AM

Set parameters could be worked out fairly easily, and they damned well better include all cripples. As for the corruption thing, this is undeniably true. But even if a lot of the revenue raised gets filtered out of where it should go, it's still better than wasting all of it on damn cripples.

The bottom line is ; I don't like seeing cripples out on the street. They irritate me. They should be exterminated.

HornyPope

08-18-2005, 09:10 AM

Wasting on harmless vegetables doesnt look so bad versus supporting people on the dole who harm the society that feeds them.

Sin Studly

08-18-2005, 11:06 AM

I already said we should put them in forced labour camps, and the vegetables won't be worth their daily bowls of rice when we can put whips to the backs of the relatively healthy.

HornyPope

08-18-2005, 11:08 AM

"We" and "them"? I'm not bought on the disctinction you draw between the two groups when one features your kind.

Sin Studly

08-18-2005, 11:11 AM

I'm not unemployable, I'm just not stupid enough not to take the governments money when they're happy to give it out for free.

HornyPope

08-18-2005, 11:14 AM

Yeah but you deal more harm to the society than the cripples.

RXP

08-18-2005, 11:34 AM

PWNed. You cannot be an unproductive, law breaking, leetch on society and bang on about cripples being bad for society and the economy. You are too. So are lots of people. It isn't just cripples.

the_GoDdEsS

08-18-2005, 03:43 PM

Maybe when you talk about 'productive' only from the point of view of economy. That's fine, I understand. But that wasn't the only point.

Productive as in contributing to society with something. Creativity? Progress? Of course not everyone does. But they never do. Also when you let those cases procreate, you only degenerate civilisation. And don't tell me you don't care about the future of society. The children of your children will live in it and eventually marry someone with retard history and end up having retarded or sick, dying or crippled kids. Or if that happened to you? It's just completely tragic.

sKratch

08-18-2005, 11:48 PM

There's an inherent and obvious fault in this argument, but I'm too lazy to think enough about it to figure it out.

RXP

08-19-2005, 02:01 AM

Maybe when you talk about 'productive' only from the point of view of economy. That's fine, I understand. But that wasn't the only point.

Productive as in contributing to society with something. Creativity? Progress? Of course not everyone does. But they never do. Also when you let those cases procreate, you only degenerate civilisation.

Stephen Hawking has contributed much to society, understanding wormhole physics is a biggie. Bigger than the next run of the mill lawyer or linguist. There's also wheelchair athletes who provide entertainment and are physically superior to most able bodied joes in terms of strength and power. I haven't read the thread but I'm pretty sure wheelchair people are counted in right?

Further, you cannot use abstract definitions of 'creativity' and 'progress' in order to draw lines for this type of culling. The only decent objective way to do it is contribution to the economy. Thus those who do not contribute should die. THEN our country would be a better place. No more leetches.

And don't tell me you don't care about the future of society. The children of your children will live in it and eventually marry someone with retard history and end up having retarded or sick, dying or crippled kids.

Wrong. In the future we're gonna be able to fix that when your baby is a bunch of cells. YOU don't have the right to do anything to anyone elses freedom. If those cripples have a family who protects them they serve some purpose, they contribute to society. The future of humanity is best served by there being a huge culling of our species anyway, hopefully by war.

I said it eariler but the ends via this method can be achieved via far less cruel and morraly incorrect ends. Like propping economies of 3rd worlds up and fair world trade. it's a stupid idea plain and simple, clearly with no thought of alternatives more postd to spark a debate which it has. Or to appear controversial and evil.

And my housemate last year pointed out this extremely profound thing. I was saying that people with some syndrome should be put down when a foetus. But he goes "why? when I see them at work they are so happy, they get so happy by the thought of sweets or chocolate" - you know those types who are retarded with strange faces and go "sweeeeets".

Sin Studly

08-19-2005, 07:13 AM

Yeah but you deal more harm to the society than the cripples.

Because I can. I personally believe I shouldn't be able to, and I will express this view, but until society moves along with me, I'm not stupid enough not to look out for number one.

And dush, you've been banging that "PWNED OMFG" shit every chance you could, since I totally ripped you to shreds in the infamaous "photo album incident". Seriously, stop. It's fucking pathetic.

Sin Studly

08-19-2005, 07:15 AM

Oh, and I'm a firm believer in the fact that Stephen Hawkings is brain dead, and his wheelchair is an alien invader who does the talking for him.

HornyPope

08-19-2005, 08:21 AM

Because I can. I personally believe I shouldn't be able to, and I will express this view, but until society moves along with me, I'm not stupid enough not to look out for number one.

Thats a pretty juvenile answer. "Why did you poop on the carpet?" - "Because I can lolzors".

But if you gonna get behind "the strong is the right" line, I could just as well counter with one of my own: "I support the social systems to help the handicaped because I can".

Sin Studly

08-19-2005, 09:09 AM

If people paid others $300 a fortnight to poopz on the carpet it'd apply. It doesn't. I can happily live off a pittance because my only real needs are black shag and cask wine.

And to be honest, the main reason I haven't gone back to work is cause I'm afraid I'll go back on the shit, with that kinda money.

HornyPope

08-20-2005, 05:08 AM

Very weak for a human. You're not disturbed by the lack of quality and ambitions in your own life but you're bothered by some unspecified cripples you very rarely stumble across because they are confined within their own comfort zone?

Sin Studly

08-20-2005, 05:15 AM

I'm happy with my own life because I'm not Jewish enough to need big cash to buy happiness. That being said, I still don't cost the government anywhere near as much as the average cripple does, even if you take into account every act of theft or vandalism I've ever committed in my life, and every dollar I've ever put into the black market.

HornyPope

08-20-2005, 05:21 AM

This ain't 'bout the dough y0. A man just wants a career to lead him somewhere. Money just offers a little stability in this society; I can support myself, my loved ones and my hobbies, and I can travel, and I can occasional treat myself to something fancy.

Also the cripples typically have someone support them and paying to the Gov on their behalf- parents, siblings, guardians, other family members or charity organisations with deep pockets. Who will vouch for you?

Sin Studly

08-20-2005, 05:25 AM

Not in the welfare state where disability pensions are twice the minimum working wage, if not more.

And think about all the ramps and disabled toilets the poor government had to build, just for a few worthless cripples.

HornyPope

08-20-2005, 05:39 AM

I'm not entierely aware of the sum of benifets they recieve, but the few handicaped people I know draw most of their income from private funds such as insurance and members of society who willingly turn their money for such cause.

Furthermore, unless a person is disabled from birth, the lot of disabled people today have worked their share of years before forcibely retiring to pension. I dont think they are they taking in more money than they "deserve".

Sin Studly

08-20-2005, 05:55 AM

I don't believe in pensions either, I believe in gas chambers instead.

Weirddimensions

08-20-2005, 09:05 AM

Are you suggesting that is a program that could be put in place right now to make the world a better place? If you're saying this would be a good idea in a world where people step aside and let their government's do anything they want even if the people don't agree with it, then this might be a plan that would benefit the human race overall, not only because of the increased productivity, but also because overall human suffering would decrease. But then again, in this same scenario the government could also take money out of the accounts of the upper upper class, or break up the estates of crime lords or invade saudi arabia and use the extra money from oil. Then they could keep providing money to support the needy and send adequate aid overseas as well.

If you're talking about the real world, then it's not practical. And not just because an overwhelming majority of people in countries like the US would object to how it's morally wrong.

Taking money spent on crippled/retarded people and using it to support the many more healthy people who are starving would increase productivity overall in the world, but it doesn't improve the governments that distribute the money (you are saying that it's the First World countries that need to kill their handicapped people right). Well, shouldn't government's be acting primarily in the interests of the areas they govern first? And they do in real life, so if governments completely cut back on funding for handicapped people, foreign aid may increase, but they'd only be spending a fraction of their savings on aid.

And let's say by some miracle, First World governments are willing to give away all their savings for free. How much of it actually gets to the starving people? If the money is given to Third world governments, then it'll be passing through the hands of corrupt regimes and officials. You'd have to hope that enough is left over not only to feed the people who are starving, but also enough to develop these countries so that they can either grow their own food or produce enough money so that they can import enough for a long long time. And any African goverment not committed to the interests of its people would have to be overthrown, and we'd have to find a way for to stop all the civil wars. Killing a million people to save 20 million may make sense to some people, but if your plan were carried out it would turn out a lot closer to killing a million people so that 20 million can have lunch.

And even if this happens, what would the First World countries gain? They'd have a stronger trading partner maybe, but would the U.S. profit enough from it to really justify killing off a sizable portion of its population? There's got to be enough drawbacks to doing this so that First World governments wouldn't profit at all.

These new, more powerful African countries could become more threatening and then more money would have to be poured into defense. And there would be a lot of jobs lost, and you'd lose whatever these handicapped people actually contribute to society, plus the cost of eliminating them which would be pretty far from free. And unless we're operating in a world where the general population is completely submissive, you'd also have to fight all those brothers and fathers and uncles and sons who aren't going to let you gas the people they love (I know we're assuming that the people would have to allow the plan to be carried out, but unless they're all completely brainwashed, you can't expect family to step aside here).

If you were to look at it as if there was a single world government, then it might come off as a bit more practical. But something like that would happen anyways. If otherwise healthy people are starving within a country, then handicapped people are going to be neglected. The only reason why we spend so much money in the U.S. to take care of the needy is because we're doing well enough so that starvation isn't a problem here. If that weren't the case, then installing wheelchair ramps would be pretty fucking low on the to-do list.

Sin Studly

08-20-2005, 09:32 AM

Are you suggesting that is a program that could be put in place right now to make the world a better place? If you're saying this would be a good idea in a world where people step aside and let their government's do anything they want even if the people don't agree with it, then this might be a plan that would benefit the human race overall, not only because of the increased productivity, but also because overall human suffering would decrease. But then again, in this same scenario the government could also take money out of the accounts of the upper upper class, or break up the estates of crime lords or invade saudi arabia and use the extra money from oil. Then they could keep providing money to support the needy and send adequate aid overseas as well.

No, I'm saying if the government started working towards it now, it could be fully implemented within fifteen years. Start with voluntary euthenasia, then mandatory euthenasia for those who can't pay their own medical fees, then a gradual culling of the penal and mental health institutions, starting with the most dangerous and insane.

If you're talking about the real world, then it's not practical. And not just because an overwhelming majority of people in countries like the US would object to how it's morally wrong.

That has no bearing on it whatsoever, people would object far less after the first two or three hundred were gibbetted for it, and in the long run those two or three hundred would be a spit in the ocean compared to the amount of suffering that could be avoided. As long as one has the loyalty of the armed forces, anything is possible, which is another reason it's a goal that must be worked towards, with nationalistic propaganda and the eventual phasing out of the currant military system in favour of grunts raised from three or four years of age in controlled environments.

Taking money spent on crippled/retarded people and using it to support the many more healthy people who are starving would increase productivity overall in the world, but it doesn't improve the governments that distribute the money (you are saying that it's the First World countries that need to kill their handicapped people right). Well, shouldn't government's be acting primarily in the interests of the areas they govern first? And they do in real life, so if governments completely cut back on funding for handicapped people, foreign aid may increase, but they'd only be spending a fraction of their savings on aid.

Naturally I'd expect that the foreign aid comes first with tanks and bombs, and mass purges. Then when the current governments of the foreign countries are shattered, the conquering government could build them up as protectorates or colonies.

And let's say by some miracle, First World governments are willing to give away all their savings for free. How much of it actually gets to the starving people? If the money is given to Third world governments, then it'll be passing through the hands of corrupt regimes and officials. You'd have to hope that enough is left over not only to feed the people who are starving, but also enough to develop these countries so that they can either grow their own food or produce enough money so that they can import enough for a long long time. And any African goverment not committed to the interests of its people would have to be overthrown, and we'd have to find a way for to stop all the civil wars. Killing a million people to save 20 million may make sense to some people, but if your plan were carried out it would turn out a lot closer to killing a million people so that 20 million can have lunch.

Overthrowing the government would be the way to go, some Northen African countries would be easily settled by instituting an arab/black apartheid, some Central African countries would be happy enough to bow down provided the local government maintains a fundamental theocracy supporting the major religion of the region, whether Islam or Coptic Catholocism, or whatever other religion is dominant. For those who will revolt no matter what, there's always genocide and settlement by forced labour colonies (it worked well for Australia, and it would have worked better if the British finished the genocide they started).

And even if this happens, what would the First World countries gain? They'd have a stronger trading partner maybe, but would the U.S. profit enough from it to really justify killing off a sizable portion of its population? There's got to be enough drawbacks to doing this so that First World governments wouldn't profit at all. These new, more powerful African countries could become more threatening and then more money would have to be poured into defense.

Again, these countries should be conquered and subjugated. Their people will be far better off, in the long run (those who survive, anyway)

And there would be a lot of jobs lost, and you'd lose whatever these handicapped people actually contribute to society,

It's true the need for carers, nurses, doctors, prison guards and orderlies would be reduced somewhat, but the number of people working those jobs are stretched to the point they can barely function. There's no reason they should be laid off. The expensive drugs and equipment needed by the patients no longer being needed more than pays for having overstaffed institutions, and will go a long way in building up industry and the military, too.

plus the cost of eliminating them which would be pretty far from free. And unless we're operating in a world where the general population is completely submissive, you'd also have to fight all those brothers and fathers and uncles and sons who aren't going to let you gas the people they love (I know we're assuming that the people would have to allow the plan to be carried out, but unless they're all completely brainwashed, you can't expect family to step aside here).

It will cost money, yes, but nothing compared to the cost of keeping them alive. And as for the families, are you talking about seditionary protest, organised insurrection, or guerrilla attacks, here? The former two could be easily quashed with a military show of force, and the latter with scorched earth tactics.

If you were to look at it as if there was a single world government, then it might come off as a bit more practical. But something like that would happen anyways. If otherwise healthy people are starving within a country, then handicapped people are going to be neglected. The only reason why we spend so much money in the U.S. to take care of the needy is because we're doing well enough so that starvation isn't a problem here. If that weren't the case, then installing wheelchair ramps would be pretty fucking low on the to-do list.

It's the first step in creating a single world government. WW2 was called "The War to End all Wars". This would be correct, if the Nazis had one. Ghengis Khan, as ruthless as brutal as he was undeniably made things a lot better for those he conquered (if they survived, naturally).

And if you think starvation isn't a problem in the US, you're very very naive.

HornyPope

08-20-2005, 10:39 AM

So you want a world government now?

And WW1 was called the "war to end all wars". Hence the irony, hand in hand with the dilusion.

I'm ignoring all the facetious argument, naturally; and all that i've already adressed.

Sin Studly

08-20-2005, 11:09 AM

Whoops, my mistake. I thought WW1 was "The Great War", and WW2 was "The War to End All Wars".

Weirddimensions

08-20-2005, 12:09 PM

"And if you think starvation isn't a problem in the US, you're very very naive."

Maybe I should've worded it better, I had written a bit more about that but I cut stuff out to keep my post under 11 million words. "Starvation" as in people going hungry and needing food is definitely a problem. Otherwise there'd be no such thing as canned food drives in this country. But people dying from hunger is not a problem in the U.S., and if that's what comes to your mind when you think of starvation (and that's what I think of) then you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure it happens, this is a big country, and you can't protect everyone. But there's food stamps, WIC, the food drives, on top of welfare and probably a dozen other programs that I don't know about. If someone starves in America, more likely than not that person starved herself trying to make the cheerleading squad, and if not that, then it's one of the homeless guys that you'd want killed in the first place. This is a country that goes crazy when parents find boobs in a videogame, and yet starvation in the US is never mentioned. And plus this is America! Anything regarding starving people in Third World countries still gets a huge amount of attention in the media. Do you think anyone here would give a fuck if Americans were dying of the same thing?

"That has no bearing on it whatsoever, people would object far less after the first two or three hundred were gibbetted for it, and in the long run those two or three hundred would be a spit in the ocean compared to the amount of suffering that could be avoided. As long as one has the loyalty of the armed forces, anything is possible, which is another reason it's a goal that must be worked towards, with nationalistic propaganda and the eventual phasing out of the currant military system in favour of grunts raised from three or four years of age in controlled environments."

"It will cost money, yes, but nothing compared to the cost of keeping them alive. And as for the families, are you talking about seditionary protest, organised insurrection, or guerrilla attacks, here? The former two could be easily quashed with a military show of force, and the latter with scorched earth tactics. "

Wait, are you kidding me? Name one country that operates like this that doesn't have a very low GDP for its size. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? If you're trying to benefit humanity in general, which you suggest every time you bring up the whole thing about "1 life for 20", then how can you even consider genocide and military suppression? You haven't taken anything you've said seriously this entire time huh? You only made this thread so that you can laugh at people for spending so much time arguing against something that really, obviously couldn't work. Ok, I'm going to keep going because I honestly can't tell if you're really being serious. But if you're just fucking with everyone, you can't blame guys like me for getting tricked because even you'd fall for stuff like this if you actually cared about anything.

But right, like I was saying, what are trying to accomplish? If you're doing this to create a wealthier, more productive nation, then your method is the absolute worst possible. If a country is most productive when ruled using military force, fear, and propoganda, then how come it hasn't happened already? Why couldn't Iraq put up more of a fight then? Sanctions hurt them badly, but if your method worked so well, then Iraq should've at least been able to feed its own population without outside aid. North Korea as far as we know is a mess. The Soviet Union and Communist China both tried to maintain complete control of their population and used force whenever necessary, but both countries failed.

For one thing, in order to suppress an enormous population you need maintain an enormously powerful military. So a much larger than normal chunk of production has to be spent on defense. Also, there are more corrupt officials in this type of a government. There always are when so many people are given the power to take advantage of those below them. All of a sudden you have multi-billionaire dictators, and palaces for generals and so on. What you're left with is a state that's so poor that it can't build roads and power lines, and millions of people are left without access to water.

And even in Iraq, with Saddam in power, there were still rebels despite all the military suppression. They were unable to topple Saddam's regime, but having to constantly deal with an insurgency will stunt economic growth. Also don't forget that invading an entire continent would be extremely costly. The new state would be massively in debt to begin with.

"It's the first step in creating a single world government. WW2 was called 'The War to End all Wars'. This would be correct, if the Nazis had one. Ghengis Khan, as ruthless as brutal as he was undeniably made things a lot better for those he conquered (if they survived, naturally)."

You can't be serious! How do you expect this to happen? Are all the world powers simply going to merge ang give up complete sovereignty so that they can take Africa? How would they agree on what language this new nation would speak? Who would rule this new nation and where would these rulers come from? It could never happen peacefully as none of the top countries have anything to gain by giving up control of their territories.

So are you sayingthen that a third World War needs to be fought? Well in the last two wars, no one came even close to world domination. Basically, each time the war was over when the U.S. entered. I mean there was Pearl Harbor, but the mainland was never touched throughout the entire war. Meanwhile, Germany was devastated when it all ended. Even if Hitler had made it past the UK and Russia, his forces would've been stretched so thin that he wouldnt've had much left to send at America. And he'd have to cross an ocean first! And then at at some point he would've had to take on Japan and the rest of Asia too. Having to maintain control over conquered territories would probably cost just as much as fighting countries that are still opposed to you. And there's a lot of territory to be taken.

There is no plausible alliance of countries that could take over the world in a World War. Defeating a an alliance of coutries that are trying to do this is much easier. And that's why the same side won in both WW's.

Now, you didn't argue the fact that there'd be no point for a government to kills it's handicapped people to save money, if that money is only going to be shipped to a foregin country as aid. There needs to be a world government, but a world government is certainly not possible now and most likely will be just as impossible in 15 years. And a world government created through war is completely impossible now and may always be impossible. Quite a few people have tried and no one's come close. The world supposedly getting smaller everday, but this mainly applies to people who want to catch up with an old friend on another continent. When you're trying to roll over the whole place in tanks, the world would probably seem just as big as ever.

sKratch

08-21-2005, 04:11 PM

Whoops, my mistake. I thought WW1 was "The Great War", and WW2 was "The War to End All Wars".
"World War I, also known as the First World War, the Great War, the War of the Nations and the War to End All Wars, was a world conflict occurring from 1914 to 1918."